In many situations, tissue may need to be accessed at a remote surgical site, excised from the adjacent anatomy and then the excised tissue removed from the remote surgical site. By way of example but not limitation, during arthroscopic surgery, endoscopic surgery, ENT surgery, etc., relatively small visualization devices (e.g., “scopes”) and relatively small surgical tools (e.g., graspers, cutters, cauterizers, etc.) are generally introduced into a restricted space within the human body (e.g., the interior of a joint, the interior of the abdomen, the interior of a nasal passage, etc.) and then used at that location for a specific surgical procedure (e.g., to trim meniscal cartilage in a joint, to excise a tissue mass in the abdomen, to excise a tissue mass in a nasal passage, etc.). In many such surgeries, fluid is introduced into the surgical site (and thereafter removed from the surgical site) so as to distend the anatomy for better access and/or visualization (e.g., so as to distend the knee joint for better access and/or visualization), and/or to improve visibility (e.g., so as to flush away blood), and/or to remove debris (e.g., so as to remove severed tissue by suction).
One of the surgical tools frequently employed in such surgeries is the so-called “powered shaver”. Powered shavers typically comprise an outer tube having a window, and an inner tube rotatably disposed within the outer tube and having an opening, wherein rotation of the inner tube within the outer tube causes the opening of the inner tube to repetitively sweep across the window of the outer tube, whereby to shear off tissue extending into the window of the outer tube. Suction is applied to the interior of the inner tube so as to remove the tissue sheared off by the powered shaver. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,203,444 (Bonnell et al.) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,867,157 (McGurk-Burleson et al.).
Unfortunately, current powered shavers tend to suffer from one or more disadvantages. By way of example but not limitation, current powered shavers tend to suffer from small window sizes, which is generally the result of efforts to ensure adequate suction in order to remove sizable debris through the interior of the inner tube. In addition, current powered shavers tend to suffer from inefficient cutting action, which is generally the result of the shearing geometries employed. Among other things, with current powered shavers, the oscillating motion and location of the cutting surfaces tend to “bat” tissue around, in a side-to-side motion. Furthermore, current powered shavers tend to suffer from poor suction, which is generally the result of the geometries used for the window of the outer tube and the opening in the inner tube.
Thus it would be advantageous to provide a new powered cutter which improves upon the deficiencies of the prior art. Among other things, it would be advantageous to provide a new powered cutter which provides enlarged window sizes, improved cutting action and superior suction.